Specifications:This new lens does what many pros thought couldn't be done - replace the previous L-series 28-70 f/2.8 lens with something even better. Extended coverage to an ultra-wide angle 24mm makes it ideal for digital as well as film shooters, and the optics are even better than before with two Aspherical elements and a totally new UD glass element. It's now sealed and gasketed against dust and moisture, and a new processing unit makes the AF faster than ever.

The 24-70L was purchased to replace the Canon 28-135 IS. In this comparison - there is none. The 24-70L is better in every regard. But F2.8 is too soft. I'm a dollar/cents type of guy, and after paying $1100 my expectations were pretty high. The 24-70L fell short in several ways:

1) Too heavy for walk around - nose heavy on 10D/20D even w/ the battery grip.
2) Big - not compact, so travel not the best choice.
3) Lens hood is huge! I mean stupid big!!!
4) Zoom ring would get harder & harder to turn the closer you got to 70mm. This really nit picking, but 16-35L's resistance is uniform and has a very nice feel. The 24-70L's had a progressive resistance, made zooming alittle awkward.

I might try this lens again someday, but only after extensive testing in the store. On a 1DmkII or 1DSmkII you'll probably see the benefits. On a 20D the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DF DG Macro was the clear winner for me and about $700 less. I'm not missing the 24-70L at all.

Dec 3, 2004

Khanh MOffline

Registered: Oct 9, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 77

Review Date: Dec 1, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,045.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Definitely the build...like a tank... Sharpness at f2.8 on both the wide end and tele end. Very contrasty and has neutral colors. Focusing speed is quick...near instantaneous...even in low-light. Extra 4mm on the wide end makes a load of difference..more-so indoors.

Cons:

Size/weight...it is a mother of a lens for the focal range. Other than the size/weight there is absolutely nothing to complain about =)

I've owned other lenses from the same focal length (Canon EF 28-135mm IS and Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX), but none compare to this lens

I wanted something that was SHARP even at f2.8, so I purchased the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L. This lens is one of the sharpest lenses that I've ever owned (if it weren't for the Sigma 20mm EX f1.8...it would be the sharpest in my line-up). The bokeh, sharpness, and focusing speed are pretty incredible. The build is stellar and solid, like most of the L lenses from Canon. And lastly, the extra 4mm you get from this lens makes a world of difference, especially when I am shooting indoors.

If you have the money the Canon 24-70 f2.8L is what I would recommend.

The only other thing I would recomend is that you purchase either locally or from an on-line retailer that has a good return policy. It seems Canon's QC is lacking and some folks are getting bad copies of this lens.

Test yours if you can, before you buy. Once you get a good copy...you will be gleaming...just like me =)

Dec 1, 2004

bogatyrOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 10, 2003Location: NorwayPosts: 646

Review Date: Nov 22, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

High build quality and a similarly high picture quality. Outstanding autofocus speed.

Cons:

None in particular

I bought the 24-70 2.8 L in November 2004, for use on my EOS 10D and 1D II cameras. The lens performs flawlessly, and I am particularly impressed with the fast and reliable autofocus.

I can see that the 50mm 1.4 which I also have is slightly sharper, but nothing dramatic, and it is at least equal to my EF 20mm 2.8 USM and 28mm 2.8 in optical quality. Further use will reveal precisely how good it is, but I write this because it is already beyond doubt that the 24-70 2.8 L is good enough to be an alternative to the prime lenses within its range. Its quality is considerably above an overrated lens like the 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS, which I cannot recommend if you want the sharpest possible pictures, since it lags far behind the 24-70 L as well as Canon's very good and affordable primes. The 24-70 is very capable, so I can recommend it without hesitation.

Why would one choose this zoom instead of affordable primes? Well, it is good enough to meet high requirements, it is mechanically superior, and if one can save patiently to afford this one lens the purchase will not be more expensive than three to four good primes. The choice is yours, but I have been impressed with this one. I am happy with the purchase.

Nov 22, 2004

tobogranyteOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 17, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 4

Review Date: Nov 21, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,260.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Built like a tank, fast focus, and 2.8, great color, minimal CA.

Cons:

Large, heavy, 24mm very disappointing sharpness.

I had the kit lens (EF-S 18-55) for my 20D. I decided that for a telephoto zoom, it was worth it to get something I'd want to hang onto, and so bought the 70-200 f/4L.

Brilliant lens.

But suddenly, everything I saw through the kit lens was crap by comparison. My L-addiction had begun and so, after reading the group love-fest going on between everybody else and the 24-70, bought it to complement the 70-200.

The first one I got was a piece of crap. Those QC issues are real, folks, sad to say. The second one I got is beautiful. I did some tests at 24, 35, and 50mm on both lenses with the same apertures. In almost every instance, the 24-70 wipes the floor with the 18-55. The clarity just can't be compared. And yet, at 24mm, there isn't nearly as much separating the two as there should be considering the L lens is 12x the price.

At 24mm the L still wins, but the main thing separating the two at that focal length is a result of the 18-55's worst problem: blue just creeping in everywhere, all the time. In terms of out and out clarity and sharpness, they're not leagues different. Which, again, they should be considering their price points.

Who knows, though. Maybe I just got the best 18-55 to ever roll off Canon's assembly line.

So many people love this lens so much. And unfortunately, I don't have enough to compare this lens to. In a nutshell, I'm very happy I made this purchase. But my feeling is that anyone who already owns Canon's venerable 28-70 f/2.8L and is thinking they would like that extra 4mm might be disappointed since at that range, the performance isn't what it should be.

I had the Tamron di 28-75mm f2.8 and I found that 28mm was just too long on a 1.6X crop camera, at f2.8 it was soft, the focus speed was okay for inanimate objects, but too slow if you have to track your subject. I found this to be the case on both mine and my friend's.

So, being a little disatisfied, I rented the 24-70mm L to see what the difference was. Well, for one the lens is noticably sharper when shot at f2.8, the build quality is much, much better, focus speed is much faster and the extra 4mm does make a difference at the wide end. It's sharp at both ends of the focal range. The 24-70L is 3X more expensive than the Tamron, but worth it if you have the extra money. You won't be disappointed. You get what you pay for. I waited til Canon came out with their rebates. Now, the 24-70mm is on my camera 80% of the time.

I've read on a few forums that the QC has been inconsistant with this lens, but I have not experienced any of this. The rental lens I had was tack sharp, my copy is the same, my cousin's is perfect, and my photography partner's works fine. So, I haven't seen any problems. But, if you are worried about getting a bad lens, I would go down to your local camera shop and check it out in person before buying.

Nov 20, 2004

Greg DillardOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 9, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 38

Review Date: Nov 13, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,235.00
| Rating: 6

Pros:

Build quality, warm color.

Cons:

Very soft at 24mm @ 2.8. Cost way too much for the performance!

Very poor sharpness at 24mm. Canon replaced the rear mount and improved somewhat. I like fast lenses to use wide open, but with this lens I have to stop down to achieve acceptable sharpness.

I tried the Tamron 28-75Di and it surpasses the Canon in every way except I would like at least 24 on the wide side of things.

Nov 13, 2004

dennislrzOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 9, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 209

Review Date: Nov 10, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,170.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

sharp, great build, quiet and fast zoom

Cons:

This is a great lens! Thought about buying it for a long time, but I'm glad I did. Weight isn't an issue for me at all...yes it's heavier than others, but it really doesn't bother me. Even carrying it for hours in a toploader is no problem. It makes a great portrait (head-shoulder shots) lens for me on the 20D.
Also produces very nice close-up, "macro" pictures with the EF25 II Extension Tube.
Very well worth the money!

Dennis L.

Nov 10, 2004

WrenOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 28, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 96

Review Date: Nov 7, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Solid construction, quality images, sharp/contrast is great.

Cons:

AT first I thought the weight was an issue, but got over it quick.

I replaced my EF-S 17-85IS for this lens. Granted, It's twice the price, but it's worth it. I just love this lens--- it's my new "walkaround"lens!!

This lens is a great L lens. On eof my favorite. Great building quality, great bokeh, autofocus is fast. ğlens allows you to take inside pictures faster. My favorite lens for in town pictures and some Outdoor.

I use this lens most often on a Canon EOS 1D Mark II. It focuses fast and provides me with excellent color and sharpness. Many people decry its weight, but I've noticed (and maybe this is just me) that the heavyness allows me to hold the camera more still. When something is very light, I tend to vibrate more. I notice the weight when the camera is hanging on my neck though. I also think the size sorta scares potential photographic subjects.

Just me I guess.

In any case, this is a wonderful lens, and the only thing that bugs me about it is that Canon will make a smaller, faster, wider version for less money at some point.

Oct 31, 2004

L loverOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 12, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 1

Review Date: Oct 12, 2004

Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,175.00
| Rating: 4

Pros:

f/2.8

Cons:

WEIGHT and SIZE. Too Expensive

Allow me to be the only person on this site that gives this lens a bad review.
I read almost everything that you guys have said about this lens and I after thinking about it forever, I bought it.

For those who love this lens, I have to say great.
But those guys who are thinking about this lens, make sure you go to a store and see it and hold it in your hand and on your camera.

It is a heavy brick ( 2lbs) and huge in size. In my hummble opinion, totaly unpractical to treat as a walk around lens. it's so heavy I could not get clear pictures with it. With a monopod, well of course you get an incredible L quality picture.

I switched to 17-40 f/4L. Much lighter and more managable as a walk around lens with superb L quality image. The shortfalls is f/4 and not f/2.8.

I hope this helps someone.

Oct 12, 2004

SLR_SlimOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 13, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 43

Review Date: Oct 8, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,199.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

sharp, build quality, color, focus and it is a L

Cons:

none, well maybe price but after you take your first shot, you forget about that real fast.

I read about about 1,000 different opinions on this lens, and if was given anything under a rating of a 5 it was becuase of price or weight, not because of color or contrast. This is my favorite Canon Lens by far, and on the 20D with a 1x6 crop turns into a DOF to about a 38-112 which makes it a great all around lens. As soon as my newborn son gets to 6 months old i am selling my 35mm 1.4L since i will not really be needing the extra stops it gives me for low light. I have taken many shots at 35mm with the 24-70 and 35mm and you can not tell the difference, oh what beautiful bokeh.

Oct 8, 2004

pranicOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 2, 2003Location: United StatesPosts: 926

Review Date: Sep 22, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

sharp, contrasty, excellent build quality, fast focusing.

Cons:

none

Coming from the 17-40L and the 70-200L, I decided to get a standard zoom lens, and the 24-70L is it. While not super wide, nor super long, this lens does a great job of rendering sharp, constrasty images on any body I've used it on. I typically have this as my "walk-around" lens on my 1D, and it is a delight to shoot with.

I would not hesitate to recommend this lens for anyone whose pocketbook can afford it.

Sep 22, 2004

Hans BertramsOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 7, 2002Location: NetherlandsPosts: 359

Review Date: Sep 14, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Sharp, very good build, weather/dust sealing.

Cons:

Size and weight, but not to much.

I had a Sigma 28-70mm which I liked but had some issues with it.
I looked at the Tamron which is also very good.
But the buildquality of this lens was the breakthrough for my decision which to buy.
it is a bit big with the lens hood but also impressive
I love this lens!!

Sep 14, 2004

bsotenOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 8, 2003Location: United StatesPosts: 592

Review Date: Sep 8, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,299.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

An excellent walk around lense. Outstanding construction and weather sealing mates of well with 1DM2. A fast 2.8 for the situations where flash is appropriate (ie weddings and or mood). Sharp with good contrast for what I need it for.

Just bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens. Compared to my old 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM lens it is a big jump forwards. Sharper and more brilliant pictures. It is amazing. Very fast focusing. I you want to buy a near perfect zoom lens this is the one. I am using it on the EOS-10D, excelent combination.